W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2000

OBJECT (was Re: So, what's left?)

From: Jonny Axelsson <jonny@metastasis.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 09:06:10 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: www-html@w3.org
David Wagner <dwagner@kevric.com> Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:38:42 -0600

"If I have followed the discussion of where the HTML and XHTML 
standards are headed, FRAME, IFRAME, APPLET, and OBJECT elements are all
away.  Does this leave ANY means to include content other than text, static 
images (including the limited gif animation), and the few XML content models 
available such as MathML?  Wasn't OBJECT supposed to replace IMG, and not the 
other way around?"

Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com> Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:38:12 -0800 replied: 

"As I've tried to explain, XHTML 1.1 currently has <applet> (if you read the
draft you'll see it staring back at you) and we'll be discussing in our F2F
meeting this week what to do with <object> (which currently isn't in the 1.1
DTD but my guess is that it will be). The problems with <object> are legion,
and we're actually collecting requirements for a redesign. Perhaps <applet> 
will go away if its functionality is included in <object>, perhaps we'll 
break <object> up into several pieces (since it really does three or four
things), who knows?" 

I don't want to repeat a discussion that probably has been going on
somewhere, so if you had a pointer to what those <object> problems really
are, I would appreciate it.

From the point of a web and system designer, it may well be the best
element W3C ever invented. It is simple, flexible, powerful and extendible.

(*) It is simple to understand, "if you want to include something from a
foreign source, use OBJECT", or even "If you want to include an object
(image, applet, sound, whatever), use OBJECT"
(*) It is simple to implement, given a capabilities list. When you
encounter an object, if its media type is in the capabilities list, it and
the parametres are given to that process, otherwise you strip it and any
parametres and continue.
(*) It is simple to remove. This is important in practice. Just give
yourself a capabilities list of NONE.
(*) It is of course easy to extend, and in a way that doesn't add
complexity of the UA. If the new object is on the capabilities list, fine.
If it isn't, next.
(*) And it degrades beautifully.

Jonny Axelsson, Net asset
Metastasis design
Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 03:06:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:52 UTC